Skip to comments.Rules to favor builders over protected species - Development May Endanger Protected Species
Posted on 12/10/2004 9:24:24 PM PST by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration said Friday it will allow developers to complete construction and other projects even after belated discoveries that the work could endanger protected species.
The new rules from the Interior Department's Fish and Wildlife Service restore a Clinton-era initiative known as "no surprises." It will let federal agencies give blanket assurances to home builders, timber and mining companies and other developers that they won't have unforeseen requirements to protect rare species once a project has begun.
A federal judge had blocked the rules last June, telling the government it needed to hear more ideas from the public about the changes. The administration gathered the extra comment and moved ahead Friday in a victory for business over environmentalists.
Bobby Rayburn, president of the National Association of Home Builders, said the rules strike "a fair balance between two important priorities: protecting endangered species and building adequate, affordable housing."
Six groups led by California-based Spirit of the Sage Council, which represents some American Indians and environmentalists, had challenged the rules from the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Commerce Department (news - web sites)'s National Marine Fisheries Service, which enforce the Endangered Species Act.
Eric Glitzenstein, a Washington-based lawyer for the groups, said the rules remain "a legally and scientifically bankrupt policy that can only drive species closer to extinction."
The rules had been halted in June by U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, who ordered the Fish and Wildlife Service to get more public input and re-evaluate the rules within six months. He said the government had violated the Administrative Procedure Act by denying the public a chance to weigh in on the rules and their consequences.
The Fish and Wildlife Service said it had received about 250 comments since June to comply with the judge's order, mostly from people who felt the rules were appropriate. Some told the government it should have more of a free hand to revoke permits, or that it should create a new government fund to pay for restoring habitat in cases where permits and the developers' conservation plans prove harmful.
A rule in effect from 1998 until this past June offered some immunity during development. In 1999, the Clinton administration adopted a second rule spelling out narrow circumstances under which permits could be revoked.
Under the twin rules, landowners and developers must develop plans for dealing with species' habitats if they want to obtain a permit that lets them off the hook for killing, injuring or harassing rare plants and animals.
Any such harm to species on the government's threatened and endangered list must be during "otherwise lawful development or land use activities," Fish and Wildlife officials said in a statement.
The government reserves the right to revoke a permit, if killing a plant or animal "will reduce the likelihood of (its) survival and recovery in the wild, ... and the Service cannot find a remedy to prevent this situation," the statement said.
So far, no permits have been revoked, said Fish and Wildlife spokesman Mitch Snow.
Revoking a permit "is not going to solve the fundamental problem because the failure of these political deals will only become apparent after the permit is no longer needed," said John Kostyack, senior counsel for the National Wildlife Federation, a conservation group. "The destruction happens up front; conservation happens later."
On the Net:
Fish and Wildlife Service: http://www.fws.gov
Spirit of the Sage Council: http://www.sagecouncil.com/
National Association of Home Builders: http://www.nahb.org
In 1973 two things happened:
1. The Endangered Species Act was enacted where animals, trees and scum in rain puddles became protected under law.
2. Roe vs. Wade where 9 mortals, allowed it to be made possible for Humanity to slaughter, burn, aspirate and sever Human Babies, created in God's image and likeness. Since then, humanity, and the USA, spiraled in a downward trend.
Touch a turtle egg or its nest, Canadian goose or a spotted OWL and get a yr. in jail and a $50K fine, and don't cut down certain trees or fill in that puddle! abort a child, get paid $750.00. And we wonder why there is NO respect for HUMAN life created in God's image.
This is why we need to inculcate a culture of life in our society in general and in churches and schools (starting in kindergarten) . People tend to think of children as disposable items.
A pro-life education Program
It's a grievous sin that animals and turtle eggs are afforded more protections and rights than a human fetus and baby created in God's Image with a soul.
Every creature that is alive shall be yours to eat; I give them all to you as I did the green plants.
Kill the humans (abortion) and save the Bears, the spotted owls, the Canadian Geese and the whales and don't crack that turtle egg!!
You can get fined up to $10,000 for messing with those eggs and baby-killing physicians get paid government and private money $$$ to kill humans! Go figure.
The Endangered Species Act of 1973
The Endangered Species Act of 1973
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973
Penalties and Enforcement
The number of species listed (plants and animals, NOT humans) as threatened or endangered
Threatened and Endangered Animals and Plants
10 FALLACIES IN THE ABORTION DEBATE
The Endangered Species Program
Page 4 Sec 3 (c)(8) don't crack those eggs, one might end the "life" of a bird, fish or turtle. I guess certain "mammals" (humans) do not apply.
Science and the ESA
The Govt. recognizes that a fertilized egg from an animal is "alive" and protected by LAW (The Endangered Species Act of 1973) and when an "alive" person created in God's image is growing and living in his mother, he's termed and given the moniker of just a blob of "unlive" protoplasm or tissue which can be aspirated if it's the mother's "choice" to do so with no protections under the 5th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution.
But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for EVERY careless word they have spoken."--Jesus (Matt. 12:36)
In Florida, women dying in bed have less rights than turtle eggs! (FL Law 370, US ESA of 1973)
One of the best posts of the year, we would like permission to immortalize it on our own website - www.grassboots.org with your permission (and the administrators?)
Notice about half way down that it is illegal to harass these plants and animals also. Don't call them on the phone more than once, don't call them names, don't spend too much time hanging around them or telling off-color jokes around them.
At one of our city parks (Seattle) I've seen a sign that warns "Do not molest the ducks".
I wasn't aware that was even feasible.....
Ever heard the saying "---- a duck". We hunt them in this part of Mich.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.